Download PDF
Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2007; 50(6): 318-323
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-993158
Original Article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Evaluation of Motexafin Gadolinium (MGd) as a Contrast Agent for Intraoperative MRI

H. Hirschberg 1 , 3 , G. N. Wu 2 , S. J. Madsen 3 , 4
  • 1Beckman Laser Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
  • 2Inter-departmental Graduate Program in Biomedical Physics, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
  • 3Department of Health Physics, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA
  • 4UNLV Cancer Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 January 2008 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective: The characteristics of an ideal contrast agent for use in the intraoperative MRI would be tumor-specificity and intracellular localization, combined with extended tumor enhancement, but with rapid elimination from the blood. The radiation sensitizing properties of Motexafin gadolinium (MGd) have been investigated in a number of clinical trials involving patients with brain metastases. These studies clearly show that MGd is detectable in magnetic resonance images many days following administration. The aim of this experimental study was to test whether Motexafin gadolinium (MGd) could serve as an efficient intraoperative contrast agent avoiding problems that arise with surgically induced intracranial enhancement.

Methods: F98 orthotopic brain tumors or surgical lesions were induced in Fisher rats. T1-weighted MRI studies were performed with either a single or multiple daily doses of MGd. The last contrast dose was administered either 7 or 24 hours prior to scanning in both tumor-bearing or surgically-treated animals. All scans were T1-weighted nce (TR=495 ms; TE=1 ms.) with a slice thickness of 1.0 mm. Three tubes containing 2.3, 0.23 and 0.023 mg/mL of MGd (in physiological saline) respectively, were used as standards to calibrate the scans.

Results: Animals receiving either 30 or 60 mg/kg MGd i.v. developed clinical signs of impaired motor activity, and increasing lethargy and were euthanized 48 hours after MGd administration due to their poor and deteriorating condition. MGd given i.p. was tolerated up to a dose of 140 mg/kg. Despite multiple dosages and several administration modes (i.p., i.v.) no significant enhancement was observed if the scans were performed 7 or 24 hours following the last MGd dose. Clear enhancement was seen though when the scans were performed 30 min following MGd administration, indicating that the agent was being taken up by the tumor. Scans of necrotic lesions though were positive though 7 hours following MGd injection. MGd scans had no significant enhancement following surgically-induced lesions while scans with conventional contrast agents showed both meningeal and intraparenchymal enhancement.

Conclusion: This study suggests that MGd is not sequestered in viable tumor for the necessary time interval required to allow delayed imaging in this model. The agent does seem to remain in necrotic tissue for longer time intervals. MGd therefore would not be suitable as a contrast agent in intraoperative MRI for the detection of remaining tumor tissue during surgery.

Key words

motexafin - intraoperative MRI - surgically-induced contrast - rat brain tumor

References

  • 1 Albert FK, Forsting M, Sartor K. et al . Early postoperative magnetic resonance imaging after resection of malignant glioma: objective evaluation of residual tumor and its influence on regrowth and prognosis.  Neurosurgery. 1994;  34 45-61
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Yoshida J, Kajita Y, Wakabayashi T. et al . Long-term follow-up results of 175 patients with malignant glioma: importance of radical tumour resection and postoperative adjuvant therapy with interferon, ACNU and radiation.  Acta Neurochir. 1994;  127 55-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lacroix M, Abi-Said D, Fourney DR, Gokaslan ZL, Shi W, De Monte F, Lang FF, MacCutcheon IE, Hassenbusch SJ, Holland E, Hess K, Michael C, Miller D, Sawaya R. A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: prognosis, extent of resection, and survival.  J Neurosurg. 2001;  95 190-198
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Stummer W, Pichlmeier U, Meinel T, Wiestler O, Zanella F, Reulen H. Fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid for resection of malignant glioma: a randomised controlled multicentre phase III trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2006;  7 392-401
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Hirschberg H, Samset E, Hole PK, Lote K. Impact of intraoperative MRI on the results of surgery for high grade gliomas.  Minim Invas Neurosurg. 2005;  48 77-84
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wirtz CR, Knauth M, Staubert A, Bonsanto MM, Sartor K, Kunze S, Tronnier VM. Clinical evaluation and follow-up results for intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging in neurosurgery.  Neurosurgery. 2000;  46 1112-1120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lunsford LD, Kondziolka D, Bissonette DJ. Intraoperative imaging of the brain.  Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1996;  66 58-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hammoud MA, Ligon BL, el Souki R. et al . Use of intraoperative ultrasound for localizing tumors and determining the extent of resection. A comparative study with magnetic resonance imaging.  J Neurosurg. 1996;  84 737-774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hirschberg H, Unsgaard G. Incorporation of ultrasonic imaging in an optically coupled frameless stereotatic system.  Acta Neurochirurgica. 1997;  68 75-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gronningsaeter A, Kleven A, Ommedal S, Aarseth TE, Lie T, Lindseth F, Lango T, Unsgard G. SonoWand, an ultrasound-based neuronavigation system.  Neurosurgery. 2000;  47 1373-1379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hirschberg H, Samset E. Intraoperative image directed dye marking of tumor margins.  Minim Invas Neurosurg. 1999;  42 123-127
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dietrich J, Schneider JP, Schulz T. et al . Intraoperative appearance of the resection area in brain-tumor operations in an open 0.5 MRT.  Radiologe. 1998;  38 935-942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Knauth M, Aras N, Wirtz CR. et al . Surgically induced intracranial contrast enhancement. Potential source of error in intraoperative MRI.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999;  20 1547-1553
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Knauth M, Egelhof T, Roth SU, Wirtz CR, Sartor K. Monocrystalline iron oxide nanoparticles: possible solution to the problem of surgically induced intracranial contrast enhancement in intraoperative MR imaging.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;  22 99-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Varallyay P, Nesbit G, Muldoon LL, Nixon RR, Delashaw J, Cohen JI, Petrillo A, Rink D, Neuwelt EA. Comparison of two superparamagnetic viral-sized iron oxide particles ferumoxides and ferumoxtran-10 with a gadolinium chelate in imaging intracranial tumors.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;  23 510-519
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kircher MF, Mahmood U, King RS, Weissleder R, Josephson L. A multimodal nanoparticle for preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperative optical brain tumor delineation.  Cancer Research. 2003;  63 8122-8125
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sessler JL, Murai T, Hemmi G. A water-stable gadolinium(III) complex derived from a new pentadentate expanded porphyrin ligand.  Inorg Chem. 1989;  28 3390-3393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sessler JL, Burrell AK. Expanded porphyrins.  Top Curr Chem. 1992;  161 177-273
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Young SW, Qing F, Harriman A. et al . Gadolinium(III) texaphyrin: a tumor selective radiation sensitizer that is detectable by MRI.  Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;  93 6610-6615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sessler JL, Mody TD, Hemmi GW. et al . Gadolinium(III) texaphyrin: a novel MRI contrast agent.  J Am Chem Soc. 1993;  115 10368-10369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Young SW, Sidhu MK, Qing F. et al . Preclinical evaluation of gadolinium(III) texaphyrin complex.  Inv Radiol. 1994;  29 330-338
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wu GN, Ford JM, Alger JR. MRI measurement of the uptake and retention of motexafin gadolinium in glioblastoma multiforme and uninvolved normal human brain.  J Neuro-Oncol. 2006;  77 95-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Carde P, Timmerman R, Mehta MP. et al . Multicenter phase Ib/II trial of the radiation enhancer motexafin gadolinium in patients with brain metastases.  J Clin Oncol. 2001;  19 2074-2083
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 De Stasio G, Rajesh D, Ford JM. et al . Motexafin-gadolinium taken up in vitro by at least 90% of glioblastoma cell nuclei.  Clin Cancer Res. 2006;  12 206-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ko L, Koestner A, Wechsler W. Characterization of cell cycle and biological parameters of transplantable glioma cell lines and clones.  Acta Neuropathol. 1980;  51 107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Goodman JH, MacGregor JM, Clendenon NR, Gahbauer RA, Barth RF, Soloway AH, Fairchild RG. Inhibition of tumor growth in a glioma model treated with boron neutron capture therapy.  Neurosurgery. 1990;  27 383
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Angell-Petersen E, Madsen SJ, Spetalen S, Sun CH, Peng Q, Carper SW, Hirschberg H. Influence of light fluence rate on the effects of photodynamic therapy in an orthotopic rat glioma model.  J Neurosurg. 2006;  104 109-117
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hunt MA, Bago AG, Neuwelt EA. Single-dose contrast agent for intraoperative MR imaging of intrinsic brain tumors by using ferumoxtran-10 AJNR.  Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;  26 1084-1088
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Veiseh O, Sun C, Gunn J, Kohler N, Gabikian P, Lee D, Bhattarai N, Ellenbogen R, Sze R, Hallahan A, Olson J, Zhang M. Optical and MRI multifunctional nanoprobe for targeting gliomas.  Nano Lett. 2005;  5 1003-1008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lyons SA, O’Neal J, Sontheimer H. Chlorotoxin, a scorpion-derived peptide, specifically binds to gliomas and tumors of neuroectodermal origin.  Glia. 2002;  39 162-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Tréhin R, Figueiredo J-L, Pittet 2 MJ, Weissleder R, Josephson L, Mahmood U. Fluorescent nanoparticle uptake for brain tumor visualization.  Neoplasia. 2006;  8 302-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Woodburn KW. Intracellular localization of the radiation enhancer motexafin gadolinium using interferometric Fourier fluorescence microscopy.  J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2001;  297 888-894
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Viala J, Vanel D, Meingan P. et al . Phases IB and II multidose trial of gadolinium texaphyrin, a radiation sensitizer detectable at MR imaging: preliminary results in brain metastases.  Radiology. 1999;  212 755-759
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mehta MP, Shapiro WR, Glantz MJ. et al . Lead-in phase to randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation for patients with brain metastases: centralized assessment of magnetic resonance imaging, neurocognitive, and neurologic end points.  J Clin Oncol. 2002;  20 3445-3453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Mehta MP, Rodrigus P, Terhaard CH. et al . Survival and neurologic outcomes in a randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation therapy in brain metastases.  J Clin Oncol. 2003;  21 2529-2536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Meyers CA, Smith JA, Bezjak A. et al . Neurocognitive function and progression in patients with brain metastases treated with whole-brain radiation and motexafin gadolinium: results of a randomized phase III trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2004;  22 157-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Rosenthal DI, Nurenberg P, Becerra CR. et al . A Phase I single dose trial of gadolinium texaphyrin (Gd-Tex), a tumor selective radiation sensitizer detectable by magnetic resonance imaging.  Clin Cancer Res. 1999;  5 739-745
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Miller RA, Woodburn K, Fan Q, Renschler MF, Sessler JL, Koutcher JA. In vivo animal studies with gadolinium(III) texaphyrin as a radiation enhancer. Int.  J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys. 1999;  45 981-989
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Correspondence

H. HirschbergMD, PhD 

Beckman Laser Institute

1002 Health Sciences Rd

Irvine

CA 92612

USA

Phone: +1/949/824 12 48

Email: hirschberg@laser.bli.uci.edu

      >